By Tonnie Iredia

From history, we know that until only 61 years ago,Nigeria was not a country. Its component parts had been city states, kingdoms, empires and a caliphate run by traditional authorities who were selected not by popular votes as is done in a democracy.

Indeed, till today in Benin, the place of birth of this writer, our Oba emerges peacefully through the principle of primogeniture where the first son succeeds his father thereby dispensing with the rancor of succession disputes.

Like the Benin Empire, other communities were run by their traditional authorities with due diligence and justice. There was communal life-style system in which everyone was oriented to be his brother’s keeper; technical justice which allows a wrong to become a right was not there; everything went well until the era of colonialism.

This probably explains the recognition of the immense leadership qualities of our traditional rulers by the British colonial masters, hence in all their colonies, the running of communities was left in the hands of the local leaders who served as agents of governance.

But since attaining nationhood, the exalted positions of our traditional authorities have not only been drastically reduced but occupants of such stools are being progressively subjected to ridicule as if democracy cannot accommodate monarchy.

Yet, Britain is a democracy with a Monarch that is respected and indeed allowed to be seen as the symbol of government. What is really wrong with Nigeria is that she has a political class that thinks no one else matters in a democracy except the politician.

The thinking is defective because there is no one best form of democracy. Different nations have in their political system what suits them and such plurality does not derogate from the main tenet of democracy which is the institutionalization of freedom.

The Americans have just a president, the French have both a president and a prime minister, the British have a prime minister and a monarch. Each of the three says she runsa system of democracy.

The other day, the military in Zimbabwe ousted a democratically elected President Robert Mugabe supposedly in the public interest. Yet, Zimbabwe did not transit into military rule, she remained a democracy.

Whereas the Queen of England is revered and only called upon to perform respectful roles like convening parliament, the argument in Nigeria is that traditional authorities are irrelevant simply because the nation is no longer a monarchy but a democracy.

How come we cannot accommodate within Nigeria’s democracy, institutions that can stabilize society?What is begging for action in today’s Nigeria is insecurity which would have been better handled if traditional rulers were respectfully positioned to lead the fight.

As the Coordinating Committee of our traditional council argued earlier,the official involvement of traditional rulers in governance (particularly the district, village and ward heads, under the supervision of the kings, emirs, and chiefs) would have ensured that bad eggs do not find hiding places in their localities just as they would have helped to detect and investigate new faces in the communities.

Inviting them to solve such problems, is not exactly how Nigerian politicians intend to make the best use of our royal fathers. Their own choice is for politicians who want power to begin the process by seeking the blessings of the traditional rulers while extolling their royalties to high heavens.

But once in power they remind all those who care to hear that traditional institutions are an aberration in a democracy. A few weeks back, we saw the Northern governors’forum creating an avenue for the inclusion of their traditional rulers in a meeting where they planned to reject the demand of their southern counterparts for power shift to the South.

At that point, the royal fathers were used to attract political legitimacy. But at other points, the same rulers are ridiculed and reminded that they require the permission of politicians to travel outside the location of their palaces.

The situation is the same in the South where Obas and Chiefs are treated like disposable items by political office-holders who are unable to coerce some of them to be members of their campaign teams.

The first action is usually to reduce the influence of such traditional rulers. In Oyo state for example, former governor Abiola Ajimobi created more than 20 additional Obas in Ibadan just to play down the influence of the Olubadan.

In Edo state, the Onojie of Uromi who had a rift with one citizen was required by the Oshiomhole administration to render a public apology to the citizen or face deposition. By so doing, the government pretended to be anxious to build an egalitarian society in which all citizens are equal, but the reality on ground was that the government merely wanted to intimidate the traditional ruler to henceforth campaign for the government party in a location where the opposition party was more popular.

Of course, the tradition of the people does not equate any citizen with the Onojie. Interestingly, at future elections, the politicians would return to the Onojie and his counterparts to obtain blessings at the beginning of electioneering campaigns.

In the last few months we have witnessed electioneering campaign for the next presidential election by SWAGA’23 – a campaign group championing the realization of the alleged presidential ambition of the former Lagos state governor, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

All over the South west, one traditional ruler or the other has taken time to pray for the venture as well as to vouch on national television for thesuitability of Tinubu for the coveted job. While we agree with the Obas’ assessment because Tinubu performed to the admiration of many as governor of Lagos for 8 years, not many would clap for the participation of Obas in the SWAGA venture.

As fathers of all, the Obas should not have gone beyond praying for an aspirant represented by SWAGA. It is unfair for them as respected opinion moulders to begin to publicly show support for only one of their children. If someone else from the South west eventually becomes president in 2023 and decides to deride the pro-Tinubu Obas, can such a fate be decried as we canvassed earlier?

There are many things wrong with the mobilization efforts of SWAGA 23. In the first place, Tinubu is neither immediately on ground nor has he formally declared his intention to contest the presidential election of 2023.

In fact, the Electoral Act would regard doing so at this point in time as premature. Could it then be that SWAGA is asking traditional rulers and other citizens to join them to persuade Tinubu to show interest in the contest?

If so, is SWAGA not inadvertently convincing Nigerians that Tinubu is likely to be an unwilling president that may not meet our expectations? If not, SWAGA needs to re-strategize by concentrating on internal arrangements and reducing the current hype of their mobilization efforts in which electioneering is taking over the period of governance in the South west.

In earnest, it is not irrational to frown at the activities of SWAGA because if their venture succeeds, we may have unwittingly overlooked the creation of a formidable caucus that would in turn hardly allow an elected leader to remain a man of the people while in office

Again, it is more persuasive for those of us from outside the South west who know Tinubu to describe him as a detribalized Nigerian than for South west adherents of SWAGA to be the ones saying it.

Secondly, it is more meaningful when said at the right time of electioneering than when it is premature. Finally, at no point should the testimony be that of traditional rulers who are supposedly the fathers of all.